Since I'm the one who made the initial comment which seems to have sent this discussion in a particular direction, I'd just like to clarify my opinion, for the record:
I absolutely agree that we have a grave obligation to give generous monetary support to the Church, and I hope that I am living up to that obligation, though obviously there is always room for improvement. I hope that none of my comments on this matter are construed as me trying to get out of giving money to the Church, as that is not my motivation behind the comments at all. It's only the close linking of "suggested" donations with particular sacraments that bothers me (e.g., Mass stipends, wedding fees/donations, etc.). I may not speak for Anonymous, but I just wanted to make sure that my position was clear. :-)

And may I ask you No-Name to stop comparing the Bride of Christ, my mother, to a prostitute. She is spotless and blameless because Christ laid His life down for her.
Have a prayerful Lent.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

"A slave has no money to spend that is not his Master's."
Oh, that's rich!!
Every dollar YOU spend is a gift to God, so you don't need to bother supporting your church.
Very clever.

"A slave has no money to spend that is not his Master's."
And the Master established a Church with His authority. He sent it forth with His authority to teach all that He commanded. What it binds is bound in Heaven, what it loosens, is loosed in Heaven.
The canon law you quoted show what has been established even if you, no-name, disagree.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

The Bethany story involves the protest over how money was spent and the motivation behind the protest.

"In the story with Jesus and the healing, there was no indication in the story that any offering was requested, suggested, implied, hinted at, or whatever before the healing."
Wrong. The "gift that Moses commanded" was well known to both Jesus and to the one he healed, which is why Jesus didn't have to specify what the gift actally was. It was, in the words of the canon "local custom".
And, since Jesus was the first to mention this gift, do you compare him to a prostitute, also?
"...no gift shop selling cards, no exchange of money, none of that."
Wow. You throw a wide net. No exchange of money? I ask again, how do you think a church pays the utility bills, with chickens?
If you want that badly to hang on to your money, then do so. You obviously have better things to spend it on than the maintenance of God's house. But, why should it irritate you that other people donate to the Church? Your cynicism smacks of self-justification.

Mary of Bethany anointed Jesus' feet with ointment. Judas protested: "Why this waste? Why wasn't this ointment sold for a year's wages and the money given to the poor?" St. John points out that Judas didn't care about the poor. He was a thief who used to help himself to the money that people donated to Jesus. Methinks Anonymous doth protest too much.

Trafficking? Setting a price tag?
Golly, I looked in our church bulletins, but I couldn't find their advertised price for prayers. I couldn't find one instance of asking money for prayers.
You keep ignoring the fact that it is a pious custom, anonymous, and not a transaction because any poor person (or skinflint) can have a Mass said FOR FREE ANY TIME THEY ASK.
You said it yourself "Canon 947 expressly prohibits "the semblance of trafficking or trading" in regard to Mass offerings.".
Which is why it isn't being done!
If I perform any service and people are free to pay me for it or not, then I am not selling my service. If anything, this canon is a recognition that Mass offerings are very common and that there is nothing wrong with them!
"The person's request was satisfied before any mention of any offering was made."
Oh, well that changes everything. So if a man wanted to make a prostitute into an honest woman, he should just pay afterward, rather than before? I doubt any vice cop would see the difference. How quickly you turn to hair-splitting when confronted with evidence.

Did Jesus ask for money for baubles and decorations when people came to him?
Matt 8:2 and behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean."
3: And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4: And Jesus said to him, "See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to the people."
He also accepted money and gifts.
Luke 21:1 He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury;
2: and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins.
3: And he said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them;
Matt 26:7 a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head, as he sat at table.
8: But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste?
9: For this ointment might have been sold for a large sum, and given to the poor."
10: But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me.
"Eating and drinking from the offerings is not the same as hitting people up who come looking for prayers."
Again, did you not read the command He gave us:
1 Cor 9:14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

"It's not like they wouldn't give if the Church didn't chain the two together. So why does the Church feel it needs to have that link?"
Have you not read?
1 Cor 9:13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?
14: In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
Luke 10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come.
7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages...
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Hey, anonymous-
So what do you call someone who needlessly sponges off the generosity of others?
You don't seem to want to hear it, but it has already been pointed out that people can have Mass said and can get married without paying a penny. It's just that most people have the common (?) decency to help out with the expenses they have helped incur.
I mean, when I'm invited to dinner at someone's house I always ask if I can bring a pie or a bottle of wine or something... does that make the host some kind of prostitute in your thinking?
Of course I notice you didn't answer my other questions either.
Well, enjoy your money.

"Priests in poorer countries sometimes do receive chickens, a bag of rice, etc., as offerings."
I don't doubt it, Father. I'll bet they are glad to have them, too!
M-m-m-m... chicken and rice...

I don't see what the problem is here. I'll give money to the Church for services rendered and frankly I think it's inappropriate to make such a big deal about how this money is going to be used. This is a gift I give to the Church and I don't expect anybody to do what I wish with something I gave. Yes I don't want my money to be used for questionable things but in the end a gift is a gift and if I had to make sure that the money I give a beggar wasn't going to be used for something sinful then I would never give!!
I give not because I approve but because my goal is to give without measure as the Lord does and I know I do a poor job at it, but one thing I wouldn't dare doing is to question the fact that money is traditionally given for services, shame on you!

I was wondering if anyone knew what the relevant canons say regarding multiple intentions for a single Mass. I often see Masses being offered for the intention (I assume an offering is collected from all of these donors) of up to 10 people while only one priest is offering the Mass. Does anyone know the rules regarding this?

"What is the name of a woman who offers a service but to not break the law she accepts donations only."
And what is the name of a man who expects to live off of the work of others? Or a man who takes the five-finger discount at the grocery store?
Any honorable person would wish to pay his own way. Any generous person would wish to pay enough, not only for himself, but for the poor man as well.
This is, in fact, what happens. A small number of people pay for the church building, the lights, the heat, the staff salaries... and a lot of other pew-sitters enjoy the benefits, many of whom complain every time the priest mentions giving.
My parents taught me a word for people who want everything for free.

The ladies at the church said it went to buy decorations for the building. That raised a few eyebrows from the donors.
The widow's mite was not given to other poor people but to the support of the temple.

Catholic Near East Welfare Association is a Papal organization that we have supported for many years. We often have masses said through them. Their website is: http://www.cnewa.org and you can click on "mass intentions". They have really nice cards that they will send you, too.

Quote: Paul, I've had the same thoughts myself. Now I think of it more like paying for a wedding mass. I suspect you don't see that as leaning towards simony, yes? And wedding fees tend to be a lot more than mass intentions too.
Actually, I don't particularly like the idea of wedding fees either. (And do some parishes actually have set fees for weddings? When my wife and I got married, we made a donation to the parish, but we weren't aware of a set fee.) It seems to me that if I am a member of a particular parish, and if I make regular and generous donations to that parish in the weekly collection, then shouldn't that be enough? If there is a monetary donation (whether the donation is required or "suggested") linked to a particular sacrament, then that just doesn't seem quite appropriate to me, because of the danger that it could be misunderstood as something akin to simony.
But again, I'll stress that I don't think that any of these practices (wedding fees, Mass stipends, etc.) are wrong per se -- I just think that they can potentially give the appearance of being inappropriate.
And of course I do appreciate Fr. Stephanos's point that some missionary priests do rely heavily on such donations. So from a practical standpoint, it wouldn't make sense to change this practice without having some alternate way of providing for the needs of these priests.

P.S. to Tim J.
Priests in poorer countries sometimes do receive chickens, a bag of rice, etc., as offerings.
On a visit to family in the Philippines, I saw one of my aunts, a doctor, receive payment in the form of a cartload of coconuts from a country farmer.
.

Judas' eyebrows got raised when Mary of Bethany wasted a year's wages by pouring ointment on Jesus' feet

When a priest agrees to offer a Mass for a requested intention, he is obligated to do so whether or not an offering is made.
I am aware that priests "in the missions" often depend heavily on the offerings that Americans send them for Mass intentions. The money may be used for the priest's own food, housing, clothing.
.

I would.
People use money for all kinds of purposes. Here is a chance to use it for something that is an unequivocal good. These people are not "buying" prayers.
Most protestant ministers accept an "honorarium" in exchange for performing a marriage ceremony. This does not mean that the couple are somehow bribing the minister to marry them. It's just a small recognition of the worth of the service.
What do you want people to donate to a church? Chickens?

Paul, I've had the same thoughts myself. Now I think of it more like paying for a wedding mass. I suspect you don't see that as leaning towards simony, yes? And wedding fees tend to be a lot more than mass intentions too.
The key difference in how these areas differ from indulgences in their perception is in one case you're paying for physical items: the priests time, the facilities, mass cards, candles, etc.. In the case of indulgences, since there is no physical "service" paid for, it is much easier for people to make the false correlation you speak of.

...for lack "of" money, even. (typo)

I don't think I have ever "paid" more than $10 to have a Mass said for someone, which is something I do often. I think that money goes, for the most part, to cover the costs associated with the Mass cards that they give you, or to offset the cost of those who can't afford to pay a nominal fee to have a Mass said for someone. (e.g., Senior citizens, poor college students the week after Spring Break, etc.) I doubt any parish would deny someone a Mass card for lack money.

Paul,
No it's not just you.
I would love to hear what the church teaches for this process, and in particular what the church teaches about the benefits of the Mass, both for the donor and for the person for whom the Mass is said.

This practice of giving monetary offerings in exchange for having Masses celebrated for a certain intention has always bothered me. I know that it isn't technically wrong, but it seems to me that it gives the appearance of at least leaning in the direction of simony.
I mean, isn't this similar to the granting of indulgences in exchange for monetary contributions? I know that this practice with regard to indulgences wasn't intrinsically wrong, but nevertheless the Church wisely ended the practice because of the abuses and misunderstandings that stemmed from it. I'm not aware of any similar abuses with Mass stipends, but I do see the potential for both abuse and misunderstanding. Is it just me?